(16-03-2013 07:30 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: 1) By vacuum energy, you mean the energy of empty space correct? Is this not what dark energy is...?

Einstein cosmological constant is the variable that balanced out the attractive gravitational force with a repulsive one (thinking at the time the universe was static). Turns out after realizing he didn't need it, we realize we do need it. It is the energy of empty space which is causing the acceleration of the expansion, which for simplicity sake we termed Dark Energy. So what do you mean by people failing to find a link?

2) Perhaps there is a multiverse with specific laws that cause the creation of universes. Or perhaps there is nothing. If the nothing before our universe is anything like the nothing inside out universe, then nothing is unstable. You might say, well there needed to be the law that nothing was unstable for it to be unstable, therefore with a law, it is not really nothing. Well it's certainly an interesting question, one that can't be answered at this time. I need to study more to get a better understanding of why nothing appears so unstable.

1) If you calculate the vacuum energy of the universe using QFT, you get 10^122 times the Dark Energy needed to get the universe acceleraring at the present rate.
2) There are many versions of the multiverse - besides there are untestable, none are satisfactory.

Ah alright, so the distinction you made was between our models apparent value and the value in reality. Gotcha.

At the moment yes, they are unfalsifiable. It's impossible to say for sure what methods we may come up with to test this hypothesis. This would be reasonable especially if the universes overlap. But who knows...

As an atheist reading another atheist philosopher, this philosopher (Slavoj Zizek) I firmly believe as this thread proves that like Zizek said "only an atheist can believe".

This thread shows the tooth fairy/dragons nonsense that is accepted as fact. The fact that gods and multiverse theories have many of the same nonsensical arguments for their existence doesn't matter to an atheist.

(18-03-2013 11:49 AM)I and I Wrote: As an atheist reading another atheist philosopher, this philosopher (Slavoj Zizek) I firmly believe as this thread proves that like Zizek said "only an atheist can believe".

This thread shows the tooth fairy/dragons nonsense that is accepted as fact. The fact that gods and multiverse theories have many of the same nonsensical arguments for their existence doesn't matter to an atheist.

You are mistaking working hypothesis for belief, a straw man argument.

We don't know how this universe began; we're working on it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(18-03-2013 11:49 AM)I and I Wrote: As an atheist reading another atheist philosopher, this philosopher (Slavoj Zizek) I firmly believe as this thread proves that like Zizek said "only an atheist can believe".

This thread shows the tooth fairy/dragons nonsense that is accepted as fact. The fact that gods and multiverse theories have many of the same nonsensical arguments for their existence doesn't matter to an atheist.

You are mistaking working hypothesis for belief, a straw man argument.

We don't know how this universe began; we're working on it.

For a multi verse to be a working hypothesis, it has to be at least in principle, testible. We can not test for things beyond the observable universe....so no...the multi verse is not a working hypothesis any more than God is.

(18-03-2013 12:02 PM)Chas Wrote: You are mistaking working hypothesis for belief, a straw man argument.

We don't know how this universe began; we're working on it.

For a multi verse to be a working hypothesis, it has to be at least in principle, testible. We can not test for things beyond the observable universe....so no...the multi verse is not a working hypothesis any more than God is.

Working hypotheses are discarded if enough evidence is compiled to counter the case they make.

(18-03-2013 11:49 AM)I and I Wrote: As an atheist reading another atheist philosopher, this philosopher (Slavoj Zizek) I firmly believe as this thread proves that like Zizek said "only an atheist can believe".

This thread shows the tooth fairy/dragons nonsense that is accepted as fact. The fact that gods and multiverse theories have many of the same nonsensical arguments for their existence doesn't matter to an atheist.

You are mistaking working hypothesis for belief, a straw man argument.

We don't know how this universe began; we're working on it.

What do you mean began? The idea of a beginning point in and of itself is much like the bullshit creation story.

Wait let me guess: at first there was nothing then some big event happened that created something....out of nothing of course.

You seriously don't see why that should smell like bullshit to an atheist?

Scientists say that x exists but x is not and can never be seen or experienced by humans. This is exactly the bullshit logic that theists use.

And creating mathematical formulas doesn't mean it is more solid of an idea, remember that whole economic melt down thing that was created using mathematical formulas? Yeah that didn't work out too well.

(18-03-2013 12:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: For a multi verse to be a working hypothesis, it has to be at least in principle, testible. We can not test for things beyond the observable universe....so no...the multi verse is not a working hypothesis any more than God is.

Working hypotheses are discarded if enough evidence is compiled to counter the case they make.

Good luck making a similar argument for the concept of a god.

The multiverse is the god for the educated atheist. It will never be proved or discarded.